Rethinking that whole "Enlightenment" thing
I figured that last post on design would generate some disagreement. Let's face it, it's pretty radical for a creationist to suggest openly that the Enlightenment and scientific revolution went wrong from the beginning. On the other hand, I had no idea people would actually go bananas over it. Over the weekend, I ended up on the front page of Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent, and my blog stats went up an order of magnitude. Frankly, I'm flattered. I had no idea you cared!
Now if this were any other blog, I'd be spitting nails trying to defend myself against all sorts of accusations from both sides, and I suppose some of you might be reading this just to see what I have to say for myself. Well, sorry to disappoint, but I don't feel much of a need to defend myself against the silly things people have been saying. I think that my blog and - more importantly - my work speak for themselves.
Two points I want to mention on Paul Nelson's Stonehenge analogy (which was not silly). First, the design of Stonehenge is obvious, but if someone stubbornly refuses to see it, why beat yourself up trying to convince them otherwise? I'm not sure what would be gained by that. Maybe I'm missing something.
Second, in the case of Stonehenge, recognition of the design leads immediately to questions about the designers. In the case of ID, however, advocates have staunchly resisted speculating on the identity of the designer, this despite the fact that we all know who most ID advocates think the "designer" is. So if ID is merely an argument that some patterns in some instances evidence design, that doesn't seem like it's worth all the fuss. Seems like we need to get on with questions about God and the nature of His design. That's what everyone wants to know anyway. Or am I missing something?
Now if this were any other blog, I'd be spitting nails trying to defend myself against all sorts of accusations from both sides, and I suppose some of you might be reading this just to see what I have to say for myself. Well, sorry to disappoint, but I don't feel much of a need to defend myself against the silly things people have been saying. I think that my blog and - more importantly - my work speak for themselves.
Two points I want to mention on Paul Nelson's Stonehenge analogy (which was not silly). First, the design of Stonehenge is obvious, but if someone stubbornly refuses to see it, why beat yourself up trying to convince them otherwise? I'm not sure what would be gained by that. Maybe I'm missing something.
Second, in the case of Stonehenge, recognition of the design leads immediately to questions about the designers. In the case of ID, however, advocates have staunchly resisted speculating on the identity of the designer, this despite the fact that we all know who most ID advocates think the "designer" is. So if ID is merely an argument that some patterns in some instances evidence design, that doesn't seem like it's worth all the fuss. Seems like we need to get on with questions about God and the nature of His design. That's what everyone wants to know anyway. Or am I missing something?